Someone Has To Die For Things To Change

"Someone has to die for things to change".... is what an old acquaintance used to say.

Struggles are highlighted when a popular 'revolutionary' is killed.

Regimes and empires fall when leaders are killed.

Criminals stop when they are executed.

"All through history, someone had to die for things to change."





That was his rationalization.

Please consider this next sequence of rationalizations very carefully.

From the very recordings of history, mankind has been in a state of war. War, not only with foreign enemies, but also with politics, ideological or religious beliefs, physical appearance, class, caste, social status, wealth, intellect, gender, and sex. We have been at war with our neighbors, our families, and even with our own selves.

• Has war of any kind, in all of history, ever created a long-lasting existence of Peace, Love, Abundance, Freedom, and Altruism? A truly happy and free society?


Mankind is in the current state it is in, precisely, because we keep repeating the same action (war, force) hoping for benefit.

Fish do not blossom from apple trees. Only an apple can blossom from an apple tree. Like begets like. Similar things produce similar things. War creates future war. Peace creates future peace.

If we keep "changing" things through force,... nothing has really changed.

reply to post by Kgnow

Originally posted by Kgnow
From the very recordings of history, mankind has been in a state of war. War, not only with foreign enemies, but also with politics, ideological or religious beliefs, physical appearance, class, caste, social status, wealth, intellect, gender, and sex. We have been at war with our neighbors, our families, and even with our own selves.

Imagine if the super-group of "mankind" gave up on belonging to sub-groups. Imagine if there were no political parties, no religion, no "separations" into various classes... We would all just be members of mankind - with our own unique and individual views.

The more we individualize and STOP joining groups, thinking that there's "strength in numbers" or feeling a need to defend our way of thinking, the more accepting of other individuals we'd be and the less we'd have to fight about.

Re-reading that, I realize how much it sounds like John Lennon. RIP...

People die every day. So the world is changing all the time. It always puzzles me why men find it necessary to hurry up the process, at all costs, just to effect the change today instead of tomorrow. Why was it necessary to invade Iraq, just to get rid of Saddam Husein, when God had already set the time of his exit from earth, and we all know he had to go anyway. All those hundreds of thousands of young lives lost in war, to remove one guy who was already old, and had limited time left to rule. Why the hurry? If they had just sent in an assignation team to take the one guy out, it could probably be justified. But, at the cost of all those other lives, it just doesn't seem to make any sense.

• Has war of any kind, in all of history, ever created a long-lasting existence of Peace, Love, Abundance, Freedom, and Altruism? A truly happy and free society?

That's not a very good question because a truly happy society isn't possible even without war.

Societies exist because there are rules which the people live by but of course not everyone in the society agrees with them all.

Therefore even if you were to remove war society would not change from what it is today.

reply to post by Hopechest


War is proof that we are not that evolved yet.

Dumb apes with clever weapons.

We are all doomed unless we realise this and evolve.

Nuclear apes are the stupidest creatures in all the universe.

We are sooooo stupid that we actually think we are smart.

How is Britney Spears these days? We all want to know, right?

Morons.

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Hopechest

 

War is proof that we are not that evolved yet.

Dumb apes with clever weapons.

We are all doomed unless we realise this and evolve.

Nuclear apes are the stupidest creatures in all the universe.

We are sooooo stupid that we actually think we are smart.

How is Britney Spears these days? We all want to know, right?

Morons.

Actually nuclear weapons have prevented many wars. We would have had world war 3 already without them.

And brittney is getting fat again.

reply to post by Hopechest


Nuclear bombs prevent war, huh?

LOL

Well let's keep making them!

Seriously, though....What?!?!?

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Nuclear bombs prevent war, huh?

LOL

Well let's keep making them!

Seriously, though....What?!?!?

We probably would have been in additional wars had we not had them. We didn't fight the soviets because of them.

India and Pakistan haven't gone to all out war yet because of them. Israel hasn't been openly invaded because of them. When was the last time France was overran or England invaded?

See my point. Probably a good idea to give everyone a weapon if you really want to end war.

reply to post by Hopechest


No.

I don't see your point.

You think the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki see your point?

No, they're dead.

You think if every country had nuclear arms, war would end?

Interesting.

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Hopechest

 

No.

I don't see your point.

You think the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki see your point?

No, they're dead.

You think if every country had nuclear arms, war would end?

Interesting.

Yep, had we not dropped those then we would have either invaded, which would have cost upwards of 1 million lives, so the estimate is, or starve out the whole nation by blockade killing even more.

It also ended the war if you remember, it didn't start it.

reply to post by Hopechest


Actually, the Japanese officially surrendered 8 months before we dropped those bombs.

Didn't know that?

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Actually, the Japanese officially surrendered 8 months before we dropped those bombs.

Didn't know that?

They wouldn't relinquish their Emporer however and that was one of our conditions.

Didn't know that?

Originally posted by SQUEALER
Why was it necessary to invade Iraq, just to get rid of Saddam Husein, when God had already set the time of his exit from earth, and we all know he had to go anyway. All those hundreds of thousands of young lives lost in war, to remove one guy who was already old, and had limited time left to rule. Why the hurry? If they had just sent in an assignation team to take the one guy out, it could probably be justified.

I know thinking like this (and blindly waving the flag) is common today, but do you realize that the monsters running our country can only continue to brutalize the world when supported by this type of thinking?

We have no business sending assassination teams *anywhere*. The same way that foreign nationals have no business sending assassination teams here. Such thoughts can only be rationalized by the ignorant ... or the clinically insane.

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Hopechest

 

How is Britney Spears these days? We all want to know, right?

Huh..who or what is Britney Spears?

Some kind of new weapon from Britain?

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Hopechest

 

How is Britney Spears these days? We all want to know, right?

Huh..who or what is Britney Spears?

Some kind of new weapon from Britain?

She is our response to them invading us with the Spice Girls.

Its a brutal war.

reply to post by Hopechest


I still don't see your point.

It's okay to kill millions?

Is that what you're saying?

Because it's not okay, and my saying so is technically proof of that.

Unless my opinion doesn't matter anymore... which is probably true.

Sleep tight.

reply to post by applesthateatpeople


Yes if the result of not doing it is the loss of even more life.

Would you not kill 1 million if it saved 10 million or would you let the 10 million die?

If New York City became infected with a deadly disease would you lock the city down and nuke it or let the disease spread to infect the whole country and possibly the world?

reply to post by Kgnow


A state of conflict is not the same of war. In you OP you seem to banalize the word and concept of war. Conflict also does not entail violence...

Taking on the simpler example, we indeed start by having a state of conflict with ourselves in managing our wants and needs in the context of our continuously evolving perception of the outside world (reality). In that microcosms if the conflict devolves into war it becomes clear that there will be no winner, how can there be if we are fighting ourselves, the result will always be the destruction of our future self because war not only saps resources but it creates long lasting scars (be it psychological or physical)...

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by applesthateatpeople

 

Yes if the result of not doing it is the loss of even more life.

Would you not kill 1 million if it saved 10 million or would you let the 10 million die?

If New York City became infected with a deadly disease would you lock the city down and nuke it or let the disease spread to infect the whole country and possibly the world?

It is never okay to kill one million people.

Never.

You think bombing Hiroshima saved millions of lives?

Interesting.

Someone Has To Die For Things To Change

This pretty much sums up the history of our species.

Even as we look across the nation that was originally founded on being free as well as remaining free of foreign entanglements, the concept of death for change is a constant.

The Romans had the idea of spreading their version of republican governance across the whole of Europe. And while much of this came prior to the arrival of the Caesars, the concept was, then, almost identical to that espoused by America, today.

Anyone who knows even a skint of ancient Roman history can't help but see the parallels between their ideas of a world under their ideals and what we do here in the 21st century in the name of spreading our version of liberty.

That last bit carries a lot of irony because, again, the American vision of freedoms included NOT getting tied up in so many foreign wars.

So, for things to change... yes; someone must die and at the current rate we are going and unless there is a change in course, many, many, many will... of every race, of every religion, of every nationality on every continent.

Oh yeah, we could 'hope' but so far, that has been the most worthless idea-pit yet.